Pentax K-01 studio test shots published

Just posted: Pentax K-01 studio sample shots. We're in the process of running a production K-01 through our studio tests, so wanted to present the results of our standard test scene. The K-01 fits a lot of the excellent K-5 into a somewhat avant-garde mirrorless body. Retaining a similar 16MP APS-C sensor to the K-5, we expect great things from it, in terms of image quality, so does it live up to those expectations?

Comments

'The Pentax K-01 compact system camera has been selected as a Product Design 2012 winner at this year’s red dot design awards in Germany. The award – the red dot – has established itself internationally as one of the most appreciated quality seals for outstanding designs'. Clearly we are not all agreed on what constitutes good design, but I for one, really like it.

The black and silver K01 is a really cool looking camera, I want one to back up my K5. The image quality is great and the focus peaking function will give me an edge with all my sensational old Pentax glass. ;)

WOW, that's one really BUTT-UGLY camera... not retro, not modern, just plain UGLY.Seriously: did someone really get paid for designing this awful-looking crap or is it just the CEO's dumb cousin who needs some credits to show his 'artistic talent'?

DPreview wrote: "the K-01 is a contrast-detect camera in a system designed for phase-detection autofocus, a combination that has rarely resulted in great AF speed".Nikon has a sensor capable of phase-detection AF. Will Nikon make a mirrorless camera like this Pentax K-01, except that it would use phase-detection AF, so that it could mount the existing Nikon lenses, and have a fast AF?How long before they will get the idea? (or, maybe are they working already on it?)

Perhaps the Nikon sensor is only feasible in the Nikon 1 sized sensor? Pentax could also go the semi transparent mirror idea that Sony uses. The fact they didn't means they designed this from the ground up thinking it would ideal for manual focus lenses that people have (they did include focus peaking)...or the other options were not really options for one reason or another. If manual focus was their plan, I can't believe they didn't plan on an EVF option.

@AlizarineDSLRs and SLTs have a separate AF sensor, but it's possible to build phase detection sensors into the image sensor. Fuji uses that technology in some of their compacts, and Nikon in the J1/V1.

@HowaboutRAWFuji isn't the only company with that kind of technology. The Nikon 1 sensors are manufactured by Aptina, who certainly would make such sensors for anyone willing to pay. Of course, the specific sensor design used by Nikon is probably a Nikon patent, and not available to anyone else.

Pentax has an amazing RAW (and JPEG has a matter of fact) engine on their cameras since the K-x (and switch to sony sensors), but after seeing the level of detail the new 24MP sensors are capable of, I won't be cashing in for anything less (High ISO can bite me, I seldom go anywhere north of ISO 1600...)Regarding the K-01, I think Pentax didn't went far enough (I actually like the looks of it), If the point was making am entire different camera they could've gone for a cube look or something like a cross between a video cam and a Lytro... Not having a swivel screen on a non OVF cam is a deal-breaker, they could've capture a huge following if they just tried to make a more forward thinking video/stills camera, and leaving room on their line up for a conventional K-r successor...

Weight. Size. Price. I guess reliability should be better too with fewer parts.It was not a bad choice to reuse the same lens system as in their DSLRs compared to Sony/Samsung/Fuji trying to build new systems from scratch, with no advantages in terms of size and weight (as they have to cover the same-size sensors). The advantage for customers is apparent: their first mirrorless body, and the system is bigger than any other mirrorless system already. Plus if you are their DSLR customer, you don't have to re-buy all the glass again or try to work through adapters which are never really satisfying. Milking the customers for all-new glass would be probably more profitable though, in the off-chance they all would not leave for m43/Nikon 1/whatever.

simple, no mirror shake let you capture better lowlight shots, combined with high iso capability and high iq 35mm lenses made this baby a powerfull "image toy". the advantage of range finder is no the size, it se smooth shutter they have, excellent for night shooting. on other hands inside space let design more compact lens that extence optics to the inside.

@peevee1 Using a new shallow lens mount has a huge size advantage over legacy DSLR mounts, most mirrorless cameras with a fast pancake prime mounted virtually fit inside the space that the K01 body takes up alone, and wide angle retrofocal DSLR lenses are much larger with worse IQ.

What's wrong with having an adapter? Then you get the best of both worlds, access to all legacy lenses plus new compact lenses.

There is also the problem that, size aside, the ergonomics of the camera are terrible (the mode dial being impossible to use with one hand etc), I'm not sure Marc Newson knows much about cameras...

"Using a new shallow lens mount has a huge size advantage over legacy DSLR mounts"

Size advantage for the bodies, but not for the lenses. And there is no point of making bodies too small/light in comparison to the lenses, it just makes the whole system unbalanced in the hands or on a tripod.

Ergonomics is a totally separate subject, but it should be understood that k-01 is not in the class of NEX-7/E-M5/X-Pro 1, it is one notch down for mostly P&S operation.

Any lens under 40mm benefits greatly from a shorter lens mount because the lens no-longer has to be so retrofocal, just look at the difference between the Panasonic 4/3rds 25mm f1.4 and the m4/3 25mm f1.4, as well as how small the 14mm f2.5 and 20mm f1.7 lens is compared to similar DSLR lenses.

These test show clearly the K-01 as the pinnacle of IQ for a mirror-less camera, equal or better than most APS-C DSLRs. The two Fujis, X-Pro1 and X100, NEX-7 and now the K-01 are as good as it gets IQ-wise in this class of camera.

Quite frankly i think that both Fujifilm's X-Pro 1 & X100 are grossly exaggerated... I mean don't get me wrong, they're both very good... which should be able to satisfy even the most discerning of critics... but definitely nothing "class leading" about either of them...

In JPEG, the Sony NEX 5N is the epitome of IQ excellence... When it comes to RAW... despite the fact that Pentax does manipulate the final output... i'd still say its an extremely close contest between Pentax, Canon, Nikon & Sony... with none of them being significantly better than the other...

Sadly, having read reviews elswhere, I must admit that I've already made up my mind on this one. If they are to be believed (and why not?) the killer for me (well, lack of EVF apart) is 'noisy, slow autofocus.'Such a shame. Still, it may not be a problem for everyone, and just maybe DPR will see things differently.....

Any comments from dpreview team regarding shot-shot speed (assuming instant review is turned off)? I dont have any hopes on tracking as none of the CDAF cameras do a good job on thatIf K-01 can shoot similar to LX-5 in terms of operational speed, K-01 will be a decent package compared to NEX/ M43 given the APS-C sensor quality, smaller compact primes availability

"Oops," says DPR. Just a minor error in methodology. The funny thing is that even after correcting the error, the K-01 raw files still look cleaner and sharper than those from the K-5 and Nex 5N. Also better than the OM-D's, but not by much up to ISO 1600.

I would be pleased if Pentax were to put this sensor with 14bit processing and some AF improvements into a K-5S. Very pleased, indeed.

And now that I got it off my chest: I do not buy camera to look at it.

K-01 is interesting in a way: with minimalistic controls it is definitely somewhat retro in its appeal to basics. But they have managed to resurrect the poor ergonomics (aka: no grip and heavy body) of the retro cameras too. That IMO is a step backward in the wrong direction: it is a great deal to me that many modern mirrorless cameras can be operated mostly with one hand.

Pentax has experience in manufacturing pancake lenses, so not all is lost - to the fans. I personally do see myself buying a large camera of that type. Two niches interest me at the moment: bit largish DSLR for big lenses/OVF/swivel LCD and smallish always-with-me walk-around camera with a pancake.

The NEX-CF3 is clearly out there; and this has been reported by various other non camera specific sites. Its a shame then that dpreview don't have the gravitas/relationship with Sony to run a feature. As for dp's policy of not reporting on non released camera's:

a) since when (that hasn't been the case in the past)b) maybe you should change this stance if you want to be taken seriously in the photographic world. It hardly gives the site credibility when it reports on things weeks after non camera related sites have told all

Can anyone recommend other camera sites that do report on future releases ... don't know about anyone else but I like the rumour stuff and its most helpful (especially to Panasonic buyers who find a new model released 1 week after buying the latest model!)

DPR doesn't run features on new cameras before the official announcement, and they never have done so in the past either. The new NEX hasn't been announced yet, and therefore they haven't written about it. That's why they ARE taken seriously in the photographic world, as opposed to all the rumour sites and non-camera specific sites.

The NEX HAS been announced; so I suggest you quit your trolling insults (I've been commenting on here long before you came to the site!) and stfu! I'm in the 'photographic' world and I no longer consider dpreview to be taken seriously .... This being the perfect example where dp don't ave the quodos with Sony ... and instead fill their pages with iPhone app reviews instead of reporting on what's new in the world of photography (released or not!) I know all about the NEX now, courtesy of other (non photographic!) sites ... Which was my point. If idiots like Francis don't like that then I won't loose any sleep!!!!

Actually, the NEX-CF3 HAS been announced - to resellers not the public though. Either way, it exists and as per my first coment, it's poor that a dedicated camera website can't even make mention of it (qualified rumour or not!) whereas other non photo sites have ... Point made!

The lack of chroma noise in the K-01 sample is mysterious. My guess, based on importing both the K-01 and OM-D files into LR4, is that they simply forgot to check that the ACR Color NR slider was set to 0 for the K-01.

To see how the high ISO capabilities stack up in the "real world", I imported both the K-01 and OM-D ISO 6400 RAW files into LR4. With the Color NR sliders set to 0, both samples had lots of chroma noise. With the following settings, the two files look essentially identical in terms of both noise AND detail:

K-01: Color NR +25, Contrast +10OM-D: Color NR +25, Luminance NR +25

I think the take-home lessons for me are (1) that the OM-D is completely on par with the very good high ISOs of the K-01 (and, indeed, with the best APS-C sensors in general) and (2) that the best RAW comparisons are to be made in LR4 itself with Color NR at default (i.e. +25), not in the DPR Comparison Tool where there is no option to compare the RAW files with chroma noise reduced.

Naw. To be a real "contendah" the m4/3 would have to be able to use legacy "champ" Pentax lenses without a special (and space using) adapter. Those lenses will fit on the K-01 as easily as (boxing) gloves.

I really fail to see how people look at the DPReview samples and make such clear cut statements about one camera being clearly superior than another. I can see differences between cameras, to be sure, but to go from those minor differences to declaring a winner is to completely eliminate the photographer and the rest of the photographic process. These studio tests are useful to get a rough idea of comparative performance, but they are well lit shots taken at one aperture with what usually amounts to the best lens in the system, stopped down.

These samples are a thin slice of what you can expect from a camera system with different lenses, in different lighting conditions, with different subjects. A useful slice, but not defining.

This camera won't move me away from MFT, but it seems like a useful option for people with a stable of Pentax lenses. If it makes Pentax owners happy, great!

Every time I look at DPR studio shots of mirorless cameras I find myself reaching the same conclusion again and again - "Nothing can beat NEX5/7 in IQ". Maybe DPR should "politely" exclude NEX from the comparoson ;0)

You might be stuck on something, Vadyma. Look at the blue Volkswagen in the studio with NEX-7 and you will see a sea of color artifacts. With JPEGs, raw, low/hi ISO. I think it pukey, and can only imagine how cars with other colors get sick looking through NEX-7, and to what extent this can be seen directly and what just subconsciously.

I agree, OM-D has lots of noise at iso200. Also the colours look quiet flat at higher iso. I'm talking RAW here. Take a look at the Kodak colour graph and the lighter colours, especially reds are hard to separate. Too many people focus at high iso performance and they forget to take a look at low iso.

The lens on the Pentax is quite soft on the right side - compare the feathers to the E-M5, for example. Still, the ZD50 is one of the sharpest lenses on the planet, and 4/3rds lenses do maintain their sharpness better across the frame.

The Pentax does look cleaner than the E-M5, but it appears Pentax is using RAW NR.

Compare them in RAW and you will see how the K-01 have better results than the OMD5. It´s also known that while the Olympus screen says ISO 200 the true ISO it use is 150, so the comparison could be no equal on JPEG. Any way, the Olympus to be an excelent camera, but for usd500 more than the Pentax.

waxwaine, every camera manufacturer cheats on ISO value, not just Olympus. «The ISO sensitivity test allows a certain latitude, so for example a Nikon D4 set for ISO 204,800 is actually shooting at 139,250, according to DxO's tests, and a Pentax K-01 set for ISO 3,200 actually is shooting at ISO 2,724. Pentax's ISO setting might give the camera an edge in a comparison to a rival's ISO 3,200 performance, since the Pentax is actually shooting at a lower ISO with lower noise. But at the same time, other camera makers could be playing the same game...» That's a quote from this article: http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57415777-76/how-dxo-labs-tests-hot-cameras-like-canons-latest-slr/

Photomonkey, that's pertinent. I own an Olympus E-P1, which is considered obsolete and noisy by many. Last March, however, I ordered my first prints, 30 X 40 cm prints of five photos I selected, two of them in B/W with lots of shadows and high contrast, one taken in late evening light with a tripod. They're near-perfect. No noise whatsoever, lots of resolution and fine detail. People overestimate high ISO importance. At the end of the day, the print is the ultimate test to a camera's quality.@audijam: not sure you mean to be sarcastic or not, but anyway the article is there for you to read it and take your own conclusions.

@Edmond, VadymA, don't know where you are getting your idea. Past ISO3200 K-01 is cleaner AND is retaining more detail (or at least the same amount). @peevee1, the image IQ is always a balance between NR and retention of detail. Even though pentax is doing NR, it is able to retain as much or more detail than competitors past ISO3200. Yes, I would like to do the NR myself, but I think K-01 definitely is the best based on these comparisons. But as photmonkey pointed out are we really going to see a difference in real life shooting, especially if you are not printing poster size, and if you are printing poster size, you wouldn't be using an image shot at anything over 200ISO anyways, and at the ISO even at a pixel level (assuming you are using a lens with exact same IQ) it will be impossible to tell a difference among all these cameras. more in the next post below

Played with the K-01 yesterday. Have to say there is absolutely no size advantage, the looks, well it is just a big BOX. I don't care if a camera does not look like a traditional SLR, but THIS, it was just plain ugly (the black version). Another thing is that the AF is pretty slow compared to a regular SLR, or any of the panasonic, olympus or Sony mirrorless competitors. Sticking with my GH2 for now and waiting for GH3.

@VJVIS :"@peevee1, the image IQ is always a balance between NR and retention of detail. Even though pentax is doing NR, it is able to retain as much or more detail than competitors past ISO3200. Yes, I would like to do the NR myself, but I think K-01 definitely is the best based on these comparisons. "

How do you figure that? After everybody (not only Pentax) did their magic, i.e. in JPEG, it is E-M5 who is actually cleaner. Look at 12800, say, the watch at the lower right corner. Number "15" in the date window is not visible on K-01's sample anymore, while still perfectly readable on E-M5's.

So, from Andy Westlake: "Sorry, this is because the ACR processing settings are incorrect for those samples, and chroma NR hasn't been turned to a minimum. "

As always, so called "raw" tests are tests of ACR and its operator rather than the test of the camera. Even at the same settings, what are the optimal settings for one camera will be suboptimal for another, and testing of suboptimal settings is meaningless as it is not reflective of the final product of the creation of the picture (JPEG sent to printer or displayed on a website).

@peevee1, you are right, at 12800 both EM5 and Nex-5n are more contrasty, so I guess they are the best. Still goes back to, will you see this difference in real life prints.

RAW comparison has to be done because all camera companies (with the exception of Olympus) suck at in -camera jpeg processing and it never gives a true indication of how good a sensor is. I hear you that the RAW setting have to be properly set, in fact dpreview states that they turn off the Auto setting as they know ACR tends to process images differently for different camera companies.

Either Dpreview forgot to turn off default chroma NR in ACR, or Pentax now officially cooks its RAW files at all ISO's and more than ever, rather than the previous smoothing that kicked inp above ISO 1600.If the latter, it seems to have fooled atleast a few people already, into thinking it's producing better RAW files.

Checked the Imaging Resource samples and they show plenty chroma noise, despite the usual smoothing at high ISO. Which can only mean Dpreview forgot to turn off the default NR in ACR where they do for other cameras.....

There have been ugly cameras in the past, but this one really does take the cake. Others may say what they like about "absolute image quality," and it's not bad in that regard, but if the absolute in image quality came with a Fisher Price badge on it I'm pretty sure I'd not be the only one to shy away. Or "My First Sony" actually seems most fitting, looks a lot like my cassette deck @ 6 years old.

zxaar, ryansholl has every right to decide it's ugly, just as you have every right to decide it's not. What you don't have is the right to tell him he doesn't have the right. Nobody asked for your certificate, either, but this forum gives you the right to voice your opinion, just like ryansholl, me and everyone else.

@Familyogre: The yellow ones with 40mm look toyish, but the black and silver with SMC or limited lenses look great. If it had a swivel screen and weather proofing I'd buy one. They should do that with the next model.

Ugliness is in the eye of the beholder. I saw one of these on sale yesterday and I think it's ugly too. I think it looks boxy and mis-shapen when compared to other mirrorless cameras. The decision by Pentax to use the same flange back distance as their slrs is the reason for the shape.This decision is a double-edged sword: while it allows Pentax lenses to be used without an adaptor, it completely prevents compatibility with a wide range of other lenses for L39 and M mount which can be used with other mirrorless cameras.

Maybe if you take a 2012 Cadillac to the 50s, people should say that it´s boxy, squarish and with no back wings at all looks like a very rare car. Old sad people think that new things must be as they knew. As a designer I can tell you is the most interesting and beautiful design I ever seen since Hasselblad 500s. Specially yellow one, I want it so bad.

I really like the way it looks - largeness aside. My main issue is the lack of an articulating screen which, on a cam without an EVF, is unforgivable. As a result Oly got my money for the E-M5 even though I own a K5...

The Pentax K-01 compact system camera has been selected as a Product Design 2012 winner at this year’s red dot design awards in Germany. The award – the red dot – has established itself internationally as one of the most appreciated quality seals for outstanding designs. Clearly we are not all agreed on what constitutes good design, but I for one, really like it.

The more measurebators obsess about RAW, the more manufacturers will precook RAWS. Next people will like how one camera performs in RAW vs another with buffer and FPS, and soon they will start throwing away mostly useless data or applying just a slight bit of compression, etc. Soon RAW will be the next jpeg!

This isn't new.... Both Sony and Nikon have been doing it for a while to their raw files. Nikon uses NIK software in their cameras since 2006, and Sony has their own proprietary method. Sony bent to public pressure and finally offered an option to allow users to shut that function off.

It's their camera, they can do what they want. Would you prefer to be offered the Red Green and Blue sensor data separately and interpolate them yourself? Perhaps just the stream of numbers and let you decide how they should add up?

And again, so what? How many people really care about that? Are photographers mathematicians who will incessantly look on graphs, charts and tests before looking at the final output to judge if the photo is OK? :)

So they're deceiving the customers, that's what. People relatively new to camera hardware, who assume that RAW means raw and untouched data, will look at these comparisons and conclude that the RAWs of K-01 look almost as good as those from the D700 and make uninformed purchase decisions. Other companies might be doing this, too, but nowhere near as much as done in the K-01

The point you say that other companies might be doing this too conflicts your saying that "So they're deceiving the customers, that's what". Was Pentax the first to do this? No? Then how come when other brands do it (perhaps before Pentax did), why isn't anyone complaining? What, internet wasn't there yet?

Any alteration, may it be .00000000001 or 1000000 or whatever to what the "real" raw file might have looked like, is already "deception" by the manufacturer. That means, everyone might be doing it; who knows what a "real" raw file looks like, after the sensor reads a scene? It's somewhat bad trying to defend something by saying "they're doing it less". If this is the case, then we are all making "uninformed decisions" like you said.We are all being "deceived", like you said.

ET2 you must thanks lucky stars that pentax is not Oly, if they were oly not only they would apply NR in RAW they would cheat on ISO too. That way k-01 would beat the hell out of new D4 on low light. It would be best camera ever by now.

ET2 sure jpegs look bad. Do you think none of us know how to use RAW data?? There are two things either you or user of this camera understands photography or not. If he understands then using RAW is not a problem. If he does not understand then it is very unlikely that he would be comparing jpegs with OMD5 and say geez these looks bad compared to OMD, I shall buy OMD instead. So moral of the story if you know what you are doing k-01 is not a wrong choice.

@zxaar: Actually, all the manufacturers except Panasonic "cheat" the ISO in exactly the same way - Oly was in fact the most recent manufacturer to do it. And there's no evidence of NR in their RAW files. But when a 4/3rds camera meets or beats the competition, there just has to be something wrong, doesn't there?

@ljmac, "And there's no evidence of NR in their RAW files" ------- all the manufacturers also cook their RAW files. Some like pentax does in a way that it is evident and they mention it too, some like Oly do it without mentioning. RAW cooking is fact of life. As far as where IQ of OMD stands in comparison to K-01, wait for dxomark to rank it, it will clear all the mud that is created.

My thoughts are very different from yours. The new JPEG engine is a texture/detail holocaust, but luckily the RAWs are amazing, much better than K-5, however, and no one will convince me otherwise, RAW NR is hiding under the bed...